Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Her plan is to take away tax advantages of a 401K where I have freedom to invest as much or as little as I want...and I have over 60 funds to choose from. All so she can then force me into a conservative-invested fund against my will, which will minimize risk, but greatly reduce potential rewards.
That is harming me and I believe there is risk in eliminating risks. If you take no calculated risks in life, you get few rewards in life. I want the freedom to invest more of my money as I see fit - not less. I want the freedom to dream big and invest in stocks as I see fit.
Social Security already takes 6.2% of my paycheck plus a company match that is a form of employer compensation...so Social Security gets an amount from me equivalent to 12.4% of wages...money that I would otherwise have in my pocket....that money gets invested conservatively...that is enough money forced out of my hands for the government to nanny my retirement...
I strongly disagree with her plan to take another bite out of my wages...equivalent to 5% of my wages (for a total of 17.4% of my wages when combined with Social Security) against my will and invest it out of my hands into a conservative government fund that is likely to be managed as "well" as social security.
I believe in a society that is free enough where I can take some financial risks to seek bigger rewards. The middle class won't have much left to invest freely if she gets another bite from the apple. Theresa believes that we are all incompetent boobs and need to have most of our financial decisions made for us as she holds our hand.
I think there's a real need for a guaranteed 401k or savings program for some people. Something like she suggests would at least leave people at lower end of the wage scale a little cushion against emergencies in their old age. I don't think it's a one size fits all solution though. California has a similar plan that the Trump administration is trying to kill, presumably because investment firms don't like it. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/...-d-c-obstacle/
ok. I simply noted that it is better than the way we screwed over those who saved all their lives. I've still not heard why that is OK.
You are scattered.
How specifically have "we screwed over those who saved all their lives"?
I doubt I will say it is okay, if you are referring to QE Trickle Down under Obama, I think that has caused some harm. You can have a 401K without QE as government policy. The two aren't exclusive.
I notice a number of posts even here on CD where people are talking about retirement at 68 or 70.
Obviously the people in control of the peons (anyone with less than about 5 million) have decided that they are for a single purpose - to be used up and then cast away.
Whose responsibility is it to plan for your retirement? Yours, your government or your employer?
Quote:
70? The average US Male now dies at 76. Many people have painful conditions starting in their early 60's and lasting through death. So if you play the game, go to school, work your entire life, etc - maybe you get 6 years of pain and sitting in the BarcoLounger as a reward?
This is not quite right. If you live to be 70 your life expectancy is not 6 years. For a man it is 14.3 years and for a women it is 16.5.
How specifically have "we screwed over those who saved all their lives"?
I doubt I will say it is okay, if you are referring to QE Trickle Down under Obama, I think that has caused some harm. You can have a 401K without QE as government policy. The two aren't exclusive.
Yes, we can talk theory or we can talk reality. I'm not really interested in discussing "I like this idea in theory". We screwed over those who saved their entire lives to prop up 401k's (and more accurately) Wall Street.
Many index stock funds with dividends reinvested back in have averaged ~15% a year the past 8 years or so - the simple S&P 500 fund has. You can do well in your 401K with simple broad based stock index funds that have very low fees, it doesn't have to be fancy.
Within my IRA I also bought some bitcoin (GBTC), which I already sold, but I got a 7-bagger out of it.
Well, I made 23% last year....
but that is neither here nor there.
Facts:
1. most people work - they are not investors and casino players. If they invest at all it has to be in balanced funds.
2. Even the best investors in the world say that single digit gains are the norm for both lately and the future. if you want to figure 7% you are a little high, but with a little work you can probably get there.
I only have records back to 2003 but I am an active and smart investor (ran a number of businesses, etc.) and I have averaged maybe 8% a year over that time period.
If making money in the market was so easy, a lot more people would be doing it. MILLIONS lost a lot of their net worth in the Great Recession and other giant bubbles and scams.
Yeah, i bought a bitcoin also. Tripled my money in 4 months. But that's not reality.
The GOP Congress and WH absolutely LOVE the concept of non-taxed INHERITED wealth....that's THEIR safety net. Everyone else, work until your 72 then croak. Anyone who expects to get old who votes for a Republican is simply insane.
The wealth was already taxed. You don’t get a second bite at that apple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
